Mon Apr 8 10:53:15 1996

From majordom  Mon Apr  8 10:53:15 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA10547; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 10:53:15 +0500
Message-Id: <199604081438.KAA56322@r02n07.cac.psu.edu>
X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 10:38:46 -0400
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen)
Subject: Re: von Soden
Content-Length: 4232
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

On April 8, 1996, R.K. Moore asked:

>Especially for William L. Petersen (5 Apr 1996:  tc-list digest IV # 47 1/2):
>
>I have been surprised at the high value placed on the apparatus of Von
>Soden's text by various contributors to this list.  The Alands, with
>abundant resources for checking its accuracy, have claimed it is extremely
>inaccurate.  What is the point of having it a few feet behind you if you
>have no way of verifying the notoriously inaccurate apparatus it contains?
>

Answer:

While Maurice Robinson has already offered evidence to defend the accuracy
of von Soden's edition, permit me to offer the following to supplement his
empirical examination of its text and apparatus:

1) Editing the NT is a business.  Saying bad things about competitors is not
confined to automobile salesmen or appliance hawkers.  On more than one
occasion, I have been asked about the marketability of a NT edition of
such-and-such a format or size, or with such a size font, with the
introduction to the discussion being, "How well do you think it will sell?
Before doing it, our publishers want to get a read on the market."

2) As Robinson points out, vod Soden's apparatus is very complex, but it is
also very accurate--at least in my experience.  (I should point out that at
the [1993?] Milan SNTS meeting Prof. Graham Stanton [Kings College, U of
London] drew attention in his presidential address [so my memory as for the
paper] to an error in the apparatus of brand new NA27.  Moral:  NO edition
is without errors, and the more evidence [and here v.S. trounces NA by a
factor of about 3:1], the more errors in raw numbers, even though the
PERCENTAGE may remain the same...).  One must also recall that v.S. was
working on material collected a century ago, and using the editions
available then for Fathers, etc.  Therefore, what may seem an "error" today
(based on newer editions or more recent collations) may not have been one in
1890.

3) Why v.S. is so useful AND ACCURATE has been demonstrated time and again
in my own work on the versions or Patristic sources.  When I find an
interesting variant in the Syriac, or Vetus Latina, or a Father, the
question arises:  Is it a "one off" variant (for whatever reason), or is it
a variant with a history and other support?  NA/UBS is of no help, for its
apparatus is so incomplete and inconsistent in citation.  But if I turn to
v.S. (or the IGNT/Legg volumes, or Tischendorf), I often find support for
the variant in question.  This demonstrates that (1) v.S. is NOT in error at
this point, for he has found the exact variant in ANOTHER source, and (2)
v.S. remains invaluable for the depth and breadth of his material.

I would note that this whole exchange began with a question over a
"singular" reading in lectionary 253 at John 9.38-39.  It appeared to have
no other support.  I simply turned to my bookcase two feet behind my desk [
:)], pulled out v.S., and noted (as I posted last week) that a virtually
identical reading was to be found in another MS from the same century, MS
1187.  On the basis of that, I suggested that the two MSS might be related,
either textually or stem from the same geographic location where this
variant was in use liturgically.  I can multiply this example many-fold.
NA/UBS simply are too skimpy to serve this purpose.

Isn't that one of the reasons for textual criticism?  Doesn't one first have
to find MSS with the same (or very similar) variant readings?  THEN, and
only AFTER that, can one begin to study the variants, and reach any
intelligent conclusion about their genesis.  FINALLY, after all this has
been done, THEN one might wish to conjecture which might have been the most
ancient.

If one agrees, then ONLY v.S. (or another "editio maior") is suitable for
the task of textual criticism, at a fundamental level.  UBS and NA are
merely "Handausgaben", pocket editions, or, as I put it before, the
"Reader's Digest" edition--good for taking to class, for showing students
that things are not quite as simple as they thought, but absolutely
incapable of giving a serious researcher what he or she needs to gather
evidence.

(A semi-related post follows on the it + syr [k + syr] matter...)

Petersen--Penn State University.

Back